Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47BC2E0068
	for <pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@developer.postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  4 Apr 2008 05:05:04 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 69729-08
	for <pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@developer.postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  4 Apr 2008 05:05:01 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from vilnius.balt.net (vilnius.balt.net [195.14.170.14])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C082E0056
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Fri,  4 Apr 2008 05:05:00 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from nSoft.lt (unknown [217.117.29.29])
	by vilnius.balt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5903338B688
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Fri,  4 Apr 2008 11:04:58 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [192.168.16.191] (unknown [192.168.16.191])
	by nSoft.lt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06199BEFC1
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Fri,  4 Apr 2008 11:55:39 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <47F5E12B.70701@nsoft.lt>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:04:59 +0300
From: Julius Tuskenis <julius@nsoft.lt>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213)
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: store different tables in different locations
References: <011101c89609$eaa96060$131c480a@nsl.ad.nec.co.jp>
	<47F5C8D7.9070904@nsoft.lt>
	<014601c89626$065d4a80$131c480a@nsl.ad.nec.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <014601c89626$065d4a80$131c480a@nsl.ad.nec.co.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.79 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=-0.790,
	MISSING_HEADERS=1.581
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200804/38
X-Sequence-Number: 28802


> we use postgresql to store  so little data as only 600MB or so, while 
> for this,
> we have to do  consume some efforts on managing and maintaining the
> database.  I am not sure whether it is a good and wise design.
> Is there any more wiser design for this case?
In my case postgresql is like "fire and forget". Once installed it needs 
to be vacuumed regularly. Thats all. Well, backups also. What 
maintenance do you do?

> For some reason the size of database is asked to restrict to 900MB.
> So I have to make efforts to make sure that its size is less than 900MB.
> Maybe I should not do it. :)
It depends on how much data you want to store. You said you have 400 
machines in the network, so 900Mb limits you to ~2Mb per machine. You 
decide if thats enough.